Urmila Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for reviving the PDS License No. 24/2004.

The petitioner was running a PDS Shop on the license granted by the Competent Authority in Village Jamkandar which was suspended on institution of Sikaripara P.S. Case No. 10 of 2009 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the charge of diverting six bags of rice containing 50 Kg. each.

The petitioner was convicted of the charges vide judgment dated 16.12.2011 and in appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside.

Plea for revival of the PDS licence is on the ground of her acquittal from the charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Cr. Appeal No. 71 of 2011 vide judgment dated 01.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 1243 of 2009 (T.R. Case No. 566 of 2011).

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Block Supply Officer, Sikaripara had recommended to revoke the suspension of PDS dealer in the light of the bail granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Court in the said case. Since the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges, therefore, the revival of the suspended license should logically follow. Specific reference has been made to Order 119/2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka which had recommended for this revocation of the suspension of license in view of grant of bail. It is argued that under Rule 13 of the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984 where a judgment of conviction passed under Section 3 of the E.C. Act is set aside, the Licensing Authority may, on an application by the dealer, whose license has been cancelled, restore the license to such dealer.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State contesting the claim for renewal of licence.

I find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the State that Rule 13 is discretionary in nature, which is apparent from the use of word ‘may’ in it, and the State is not obligated to revive the licence after acquittal in the criminal case. There was a judgment of conviction by the Trial Court and the order of acquittal was passed on a technical ground of non-examination of the Investigating Officer and, therefore, it is not a case of clean acquittal.

Further, the petitioner had an alternative remedy in the form of appeal against the order of cancellation under Clause 28 of the Bihar Control Order which has not been availed by the petitioner before approaching this, Court.

Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.